From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.1356.1602078181530617985 for ; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 06:43:01 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=CZiIW4Qy; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 216.205.24.124, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1602078180; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ajh4AwoLWrpPfPzV0+wbXExlyz1oYYaglZrCs76uVNs=; b=CZiIW4Qy75K17rInC2l0RFQ1MxUYiAeKC9QFLsqoTXJ06hB1CT2WBodDX5dMywvKHLhhhx YIiuoruzPZXv9iTnV/6QYP9lae8PB1idUSBZp4b0BmoPjVfwJJBCatQzUIkqMTmpez6OOQ O3KZsNWOuR82WIs/NCMl3L4k63uzO4M= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-73-iiArt8rMOEOCD1herPslBg-1; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 09:42:56 -0400 X-MC-Unique: iiArt8rMOEOCD1herPslBg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C810D18A8223; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 13:42:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-113-94.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.113.94]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA1D6614F5; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 13:42:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] VariablePolicy: Final Changes Thread 2 - ECC & UnitTest To: devel@edk2.groups.io, michael.d.kinney@intel.com, Bret Barkelew References: From: "Laszlo Ersek" Message-ID: <742c37aa-59a8-ac80-ee61-5173be35afea@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 15:42:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=lersek@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 10/07/20 03:46, Michael D Kinney wrote: > > Bret, > > Initializing variable in declaration for structures and arrays > introduces use of intrinsics. Since it is possible for unit test > sources to be used for both host and target tests, I recommend we > continue to follow the EDK II coding style for unit tests to support > maximum compatibility and code reuse. > > Using a module global variable with initializers instead of > initializing a local declaration is the same amount of work, so I do > not believe that will result in fewer tests. > > I agree it is useful to have the test data next to the test code. This > can be accomplished by breaking up into more files so the test data is > immediately above the test function the test data is used. Does ECC > raise an error if a module global is placed between 2 functions? A > 2nd approach to put the module global immediately above the test > function the test data is used. Consider the following example structure type, for the sake of discussion: typedef struct { UINT32 Value; } TEST_DATA; * Case#1: block scope, automatic storage duration EFI_STATUS FoobarTest ( VOID ) { TEST_DATA TestData = { 42 }; // ... } Problem: uses intrinsics. * Case#2: file scope, static storage duration. STATIC CONST TEST_DATA mTestData = { 42 }; EFI_STATUS FoobarTest ( VOID ) { // ... } Problem: either "mTestData" is textually far from FoobarTest(), or -- if we keep them close to each other -- we mix variable definitions with function definitions, at file scope. * Case #3: block scope, static storage duration. EFI_STATUS FoobarTest ( VOID ) { STATIC CONST TEST_DATA TestData = { 42 }; // ... } Problem: there should be none. Does not involve intrinsics, and the object definition is part of the function's scope. If ECC does not recognize case#3 as valid, then that is an *ECC bug*. ECC has no reason to prevent case#3, as case#3 does not involve intrinsics, and is a generally valid and useful C language construct (it combines the life cycle of case#2 with the visibility of case#1). Again, if ECC rejects case#3, that's *definitely* a bug in ECC, and we should fix it first. Given that ECC includes a full-blown C language parser, the fix should not be too difficult -- check if the declaration has the "static" storage-class specifier. ... In fact, I think that purely CONST-qualifying TestData might suffice for shutting up ECC. See the following in "BaseTools/Source/Python/Ecc/c.py", method "CheckFuncLayoutLocalVariable": > for Result in ResultSet: > if len(Result[1]) > 0 and 'CONST' not in Result[3]: > PrintErrorMsg(ERROR_C_FUNCTION_LAYOUT_CHECK_NO_INIT_OF_VARIABLE, 'Variable Name: %s' % Result[0], FileTable, Result[2]) So case#3 should work through that avenue already, because case#3 has CONST *too*. Now, in case#3, if "TestData" needs to undergo modifications, and so CONST is not immediately desirable, that's solvable: EFI_STATUS FoobarTest ( VOID ) { STATIC CONST TEST_DATA TestDataTemplate = { 42 }; TEST_DATA TestData; CopyMem (&TestData, TestDataTemplate, sizeof (TEST_DATA)); // ... } Thanks Laszlo > > Best regards, > > Mike > > From: devel@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of Bret Barkelew via groups.io > Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 5:28 PM > To: devel@edk2.groups.io > Subject: [edk2-devel] VariablePolicy: Final Changes Thread 2 - ECC & UnitTest > > Ive worked through all the ECC issues with Variable Policy (AND the UnitTests) on this branch: > Commits · corthon/edk2 (github.com) > > I even wrote the Main() entry point lib that Laszlo suggested (it works rather nicely): > TEMP: Staging for HostTest entry point · corthon/edk2@4ce5210 (github.com) > > However, theres one that I just cant get past and I would like to take it up with the community. I dont think that UnitTests should have to deal with the cant initialize variables in declaration check. Almost none of the solutions that I tested worked, and the ones that did were too cumbersome. They failed on two key points that are important for test writing: > > * They were annoying to write ===> fewer tests. > * They moved even more of the test case data away from the test ===> harder to read tests. > > I would like to move for an exception for unit tests (or at least host-based unit tests), but I dont know how to accomplish that from a technical standpoint. > > Thoughts? > > - Bret > > > > > > >